william.scherk

war crimes
What does a President Trump mean for Syria?

35 posts in this topic

I was thinking of something less exciting, one or two nukes exchanged somewhere in the Levant. So many players, long grudges and animus.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am cynical about this announcement, but hope springs eternal. From "Syria-wide ceasefire comes into effect."

Quote

A spokesman for the main moderate Syrian opposition groups said earlier they had agreed to abide by ceasefire negotiated by Turkey and Russia, which includes all parts of Syria. 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Turkey will press ahead with its military offensive to clear a border area in northern Syria from ISIS militants, saying the agreement does not cover terror organizations. They include the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the al-Qaeda-linked Fatah al-Sham Front.

Osama Abu Zeid has told reporters in Turkey that the truce will be followed by peace talks in Kazakhstan that will focus on finding a solution for Syria's crisis.

He said 13 armed opposition factions have signed the five-point agreement. 

mapsyria

(Sarah Baptist/CBC)

Abu Zeid says the peace talks will be based on the Geneva 2012 declaration that called for a transitional governing body with full executive powers to run affairs in Syria during the transitional period.

He said "this means that there will be no presence for [President Bashar al-] Assad in the future."

 

Excerpts of the agreement that were obtained by The Associated Press say the truce will include all areas where the "moderate opposition" has a presence, including those where al-Qaeda's branch in Syria exists.

It says the opposition will be given the right to name its delegation to peace talks in the Kazakh capital of Astana.

The talks will begin within in one month. It says the peace talks will be in accordance with December 2015 United Nations Security Council resolution 2254 which endorsed a road map for a transitional period that includes parliamentary and presidential elections within 18 months.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I am cynical about this announcement, but hope springs eternal. From "Syria-wide ceasefire comes into effect."

 

I will assume that "settlement"  will last at most two weeks, and that is optimistic. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2016 at 6:48 PM, william.scherk said:

It's not like the conflict will go away or that we will get a sense of new policy this week or next. 

Meet y'all back here next time the flea enters my ear.

No flea, just consequences ... of new policy.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old thread that I was just reminded of privately.

Well, we found out what President Trump will do with Syria when push comes to shove.

The Breitbart headline says it all.

Trump Ordered Syria Attack, then Ate Dinner with Chinese President

:)

There are people for and against this for differing reasons. But there are no good guys in this situation (except us, of course :) ).

Both Syrians and the rebels (the Al Qaeda leaning ones) have used poison gas on civilians, so it doesn't matter who did it this time around. The message was to both sides and it was to stop the shit. Period.

However, I also think President Trump relied on intelligence from folks who are serious, highly competent, patriotic, and do not want to repeat the weapons of mass destruction fiasco of the Bush years. So he probably hit the right target without a false flag.

There is one thing everyone can agree on. This is a much different style of governing than the former administration. President Trump will act--and act decisively--when he deems action necessary. There is none of this red line that moves crap.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: President Trump will act--and act decisively--when he deems action necessary. There is none of this red line that moves crap. end quote

CBS broke into programing to tell us about the attack on Syria. Scott Pelly was actually shook up about it, as he reported what facts he knew. And today I heard Schumer and Pelosi both endorsed the attack.

It was a good move. 58 of 59 missiles seem to have hit their targets. The 7 people killed worked at the poison gas depot. Maybe the released gas killed them. The Russians were warned just before the attack to get out. No American lives were risked, or at least any more than the fact of serving in the military is a risk. I am impressed at the swiftness and surety of our response. We were morally correct in our action.

Peter

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

A different Rand quote:

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. Certainly, the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their governments we are all paying for the sins of ours. If some people put up with dictatorships some of them do in Soviet Russia, and some of them did in Nazi Germany then they deserve what their government deserves. There are no innocent people in war. Our only concern should be: who started that war? If you can establish that a given country did it, then there is no need to consider the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of right. I've covered this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights, only individuals do.

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were individuals opposed to the Soviet system. How would you handle that?

AR: I'll pretend I'm taking the question seriously, because this question is blatantly wrong. I cannot understand how anyone could entertain the question. My guess is that the problem is context-dropping. The question assumes that an individual inside a country can and should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts, willingly or unwillingly (even if he is fighting it he still accepts it because he hasn't left the country), and that others should respect his rights and collapse to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who wouldn't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. So if we fight a war, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent ones; those that exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. But nobody should put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self- defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him with force, never mind who he is or who stands behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself. end quote

I was thinking about a counterpoint. I believe Wolf thinks “granted” government power should end at the borderline.

Wolf DeVoon wrote: Definitions of justice proffered by others have been lengthy, covering hundreds of pages, intertwining dozens of terms. However, logic is an exact science. Verbosity indicates lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation. That's why my definition of justice is succinct. A complete theory of justice is presented in one proposition, consisting of one object, one action, and two qualifiers: Justice = armed defense of innocent liberty. The qualifiers are necessary for precision. Verbal defense of liberty isn't justice. It must be armed defense. Not all liberty, just innocent liberty (e.g., the liberty of women and children, who are often unable to defend themselves). end quote

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Joseph is not pleased and he raises many points that cannot be ignored.

I, too, am not comfortable with the number of Neocons Trump has made peace with. Their thing is globalism (with them among the elites, of course), enriching themselves along the way with endless non-winnable war for profit.

I'm one of those who is glad Trump carried out the strike, though.

If we are to have a safe world, we cannot allow certain kinds of barbarism to grow. The distance between a government having weaponized gas and a terrorist is an arm's length.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brooke Baldwin tried to get a Syrian in Syria who liked President Trump's attack to bash him over Syrian refugees and, by implication, praise Hillary Clinton.

I don't think it went like she wanted it to.

:) 

I have to admit, when Brooke Baldwin--or anyone in the MSM--gets her ass handed to her for trying to gin up fake news, it feels good. And as she tried to wiggle out of it, the guy wouldn't let her.

:) 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a more technical big-picture political view from Newt Gingrich.

I like Newt, even though many of the people I like don't.

He thinks Assad is going down. From everything I seen and read today, I think so, too.

Apropos, I read somewhere that the Russians are ultimately embarrassed by Assad's insistence on being a crazy person and they want to replace him, but with someone who will keep their economic agenda going. That sounds plausible to me.

The funniest remark I read was from Rush Limbaugh. He said, tongue in cheek, that President Trump was defending former President Obama's honor.

:) 

From a cockeyed slant, that actually sounds plausible. I can see President Trump defending the honor of the US presidency irrespective of who was in it. Assad stuck his tongue out at Obama, then Trump. So Trump punched him the nose real hard and said (ahem... I paraphrase :) ), "Put your tongue back in your mouth, asshole. You made a promise to Obama and you will damn sure keep it." 

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

From a cockeyed slant, that actually sounds plausible. I can see President Trump defending the honor of the US presidency irrespective of who was in it. Assad stuck his tongue out at Obama, then Trump. So Trump punched him the nose real hard and said (ahem... I paraphrase :) ), "Put your tongue back in your mouth, asshole. You made a promise to Obama and you will damn sure keep it." 

Michael

When and where did this happen?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now